Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 146, Issue 2, pp 176–183 | Cite as

Effects of vegetation on nest microclimate and breeding performance of lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus)

  • Sin-Yeon Kim
  • Pat Monaghan
Original Article


For birds that breed in large colonies, the overall area occupied by the colony generally comprises several sub-areas that differ in physical and social features such as vegetation and breeding density. Birds arriving at a breeding colony select their nesting sites through a hierarchical process of selecting a sub-area, then a particular nest site with appropriate biotic and physical attributes. Optimal vegetation cover is one such important attribute. Many ground nesting gulls preferentially select nest sites that provide shelter during reproduction, but this presumably has to be balanced against any costs such as reduced visibility of potential predators. The effects of vegetation height in the sub-areas within a colony, and of the amount of vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the nest on nest microclimate were investigated in lesser black-backed gulls Larus fuscus in a colony in which overall vegetation height differed in different sub-areas and was patchily distributed within these areas. Tall vegetation did have a sheltering effect, and this was positively related with chick growth. However, this vegetation area was associated with lower breeding densities, relatively late laying birds and lower chick survival rate, suggesting that sub-areas with tall vegetation held more lower-quality or young breeders. Within the sub-areas, the birds preferentially selected nest sites with more surrounding vegetation, and this was positively correlated with their hatching success.


Breeding performance Habitat selection Larus fuscus Microclimate Nest vegetation 



We are very grateful to Liliana D’Alba who provided invaluable help in fieldwork. We also thank Maria Bogdanova, Kampanat Tharapoom and Nanette Verboven for advice and help during field season, and Kevin Murphy for helpful discussion on the research protocol. Trish Chadwick and Mick Venters of the Cumbria Wildlife Trust kindly allowed S.-Y. Kim to carry out the research in the South Walney Nature Reserve. Peter H. Becker and Arie L. Spaans provided constructive criticism to improve the manuscript. S.-Y. Kim is funded by a University of Glasgow postgraduate research scholarship and the Overseas Research Scheme. The investigations we performed did not involve any licensed procedures and complied with the current laws of the UK. The eggs used for measurement of cooling rate were collected by M. Bogdanova and N. Verboven for their experimental manipulations under English Nature licenses.


  1. Ar A, Rahn H (1980) Water in the avian egg: overall budget of incubation. Am Zool 20:373–384Google Scholar
  2. Ar A, Sidis Y (2002) Nest microclimate during incubation. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian incubation: behaviour, environment, and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew GA, Dawson WR (1979) Thermoregulatory behavior during incubation in Heermann’s gull. Physiol Zool 52:422–437Google Scholar
  4. Becker PH, Erdelen M (1982) Windrichtung und Vegetationsdeckung am Nest der Silbermöwe (Larus argentatus). J Ornithol 123:117–130Google Scholar
  5. Becker PH, Erdelen M (1986) Egg size in herring gulls (Larus argentatus) on Mellum Island, North Sea, West Germany: the influence of nest vegetation, nest density, and colony development. Colon Waterbirds 9:68–80Google Scholar
  6. Bekoff M, Scott AC, Conner DA (1989) Ecological analysis of nesting success in evening grosbeaks. Oecologia 81:67–74Google Scholar
  7. Bennett AF, Dawson WR (1979) Physiological responses of embryonic Heermann’s gulls to temperature. Physiol Zool 52:413–421Google Scholar
  8. Block WM, Brennan LA (1993) The habitat concept in ornithology, theory and applications. Curr Ornithol 11:35–91Google Scholar
  9. Borboroglu PG, Yorio P (2004) Habitat requirements and selection by kelp gulls (Larus dominicanus) in Central and Northern Patagonia, Argentina. Auk 121:243–252Google Scholar
  10. Bosch M, Sol D (1998) Habitat selection and breeding success in yellow-legged gulls Larus cachinnans. Ibis 140:415–421Google Scholar
  11. Brouwer A, Spaans AL, De Wit AAN (1995) Survival of herring gull Larus argentatus chicks: an experimental analysis of the need for early breeding. Ibis 137:272–278Google Scholar
  12. Bukacińska M, Bukaciński D (1993) The effect of habitat structure and density of nests on territory size and territorial behaviour in the black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus L.). Ethology 94:306–316Google Scholar
  13. Burger J (1977) Role of visibility in nesting behavior of Larus gulls. J Comp Physiol Psych 91:1347–1358Google Scholar
  14. Burger J, Lesser F (1980) Nest site selection in an expanding population of herring gulls. J Field Ornithol 51:270–280Google Scholar
  15. Butler RG, Janesbutler S (1982) Territoriality and behavioral correlates of reproductive success of great black-backed gulls. Auk 99:58–66Google Scholar
  16. Calladine J (1997) A comparison of herring gull Larus argentatus and lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus nest site: their characteristics and relationships with breeding success. Bird Study 44:318–326Google Scholar
  17. Cody ML (1985) An introduction to habitat selection in birds. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic, New York, pp 3–56Google Scholar
  18. Crawley MJ (2003) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewald PW, Hunt GL Jr, Warner M (1980) Territory size in western gulls: importance of intrusion pressure, defence investments, and vegetation structure. Ecology 60:80–87Google Scholar
  20. Fretwell SD (1972) Theory of habitat distribution. In: Fretwell SD (ed) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, N.J., pp 79–117Google Scholar
  21. Gloutney ML, Clark RG (1997) Nest-site selection by mallards and blue-winged teal in relation to microclimate. Auk 114:381–395Google Scholar
  22. Götmark F, Blomqvist D, Johansson OC, Bergkvist J (1995) Nest site selection: a trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? J Avian Biol 26:305–312Google Scholar
  23. Hébert PN, McNeil R (1999) Nocturnal activity of ring-billed gulls at and away from the colony. Waterbirds 22:445–451Google Scholar
  24. Hipfner JM (1997) The effects of parental quality and timing of breeding on the growth of nestling thick-billed murres. Condor 99:353–360Google Scholar
  25. Houston DC, Jones PJ, Sibly RM (1983) The effect of female body condition on egg laying in lesser black-backed gulls Larus fuscus. J Zool 200:509–520Google Scholar
  26. Kilpi M, Lindström K (1997) Habitat-specific clutch size and cost of incubation in common eiders, Somateria mollissima. Oecologia 111:297–301Google Scholar
  27. Kim S-Y, Monaghan P (2005) Interacting effects of nest shelter and breeder quality on behaviour and breeding performance of herring gulls. Anim Behav 69:301–306Google Scholar
  28. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Mawhinney K, Diamond AW, Kehoe FP (1999) The use of energy, fat, and protein reserves by breeding great black-backed gulls. Can J Zool 77:1459–1464Google Scholar
  30. Miyazaki M (1996) Vegetation cover, kleptoparasitism by diurnal gulls, and timing of arrival of nocturnal rhinoceros auklets. Auk 113:698–702Google Scholar
  31. Parsons J (1971) Cannibalism in herring gulls. Br Birds 64:528–537Google Scholar
  32. Partridge L (1978) Habitat selection. In: Krebs JR, Davis NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 351–376Google Scholar
  33. Pierotti R (1982) Habitat selection and its effect on reproductive output in the herring gull in Newfoundland. Ecology 63:854–868Google Scholar
  34. Rodway MS, Regehr HM (1999) Habitat selection and reproductive performance of food-stressed herring gulls. Condor 101:566–576Google Scholar
  35. Saliva JE, Burger J (1989) Effect of experimental manipulation of vegetation density on nest-site selection in sooty terns. Condor 91:689–698Google Scholar
  36. Salzman AG (1982) The selective importance of heat stress in gull nest location. Ecology 63:742–751Google Scholar
  37. Spaans AL, de Wit AAN, van Vlaardingen MA (1987) Effects of increased population size in herring gulls on breeding success and other parameters. Stud Avian Biol 10:57–65Google Scholar
  38. Stauffer DF, Best LB (1986) Nest-site characteristics of open-nesting birds in riparian habitats in Iowa. Wilson Bull 98:231–242Google Scholar
  39. Swart D, Rahn H, De Kock J (1987) Nest microclimate and incubation water loss of eggs of the African ostrich (Struthio camelus var. domesticus). J Exp Zool Suppl 1:239–246Google Scholar
  40. Visschedijk AHJ (1980) Effects of barometric pressure and abnormal gas mixtures on gaseous exchange by the avian embryo. Am Zool 20:469–476Google Scholar
  41. Vleck CM, Vleck D, Rahn H, Paganelli CV (1983) Nest microclimate, water-vapor conductance, and water loss in heron and tern eggs. Auk 100:76–83Google Scholar
  42. Wiebe KL, Martin K (1998) Costs and benefits of nest cover for ptarmigan: changes within and between years. Anim Behav 56:1137–1144Google Scholar
  43. With KA, Webb DR (1993) Microclimate of ground nests: the relative importance of radiative cover and wind breaks for three grassland species. Condor 95:401–413Google Scholar
  44. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graham Kerr Building, Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, IBLSUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations